Delhi Riots- Not Able To Understand As To Why Constable Waited Till Applicant’s Arrest To Name Him, Court Grants Bail To Accused

first_imgNews UpdatesDelhi Riots- Not Able To Understand As To Why Constable Waited Till Applicant’s Arrest To Name Him, Court Grants Bail To Accused Sparsh Upadhyay30 Nov 2020 8:20 AMShare This – xThe Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Wednesday (25th November) granted bail to a man named Salim Malik @ Munna, who was arrested in a case, for allegedly damaging, vandalizing and thereafter setting on fire a car showroom on 25.02.2020. While disposing of the application of Salim Malik, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav noted, “The identification of applicant by Constable…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Wednesday (25th November) granted bail to a man named Salim Malik @ Munna, who was arrested in a case, for allegedly damaging, vandalizing and thereafter setting on fire a car showroom on 25.02.2020. While disposing of the application of Salim Malik, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav noted, “The identification of applicant by Constable Mukesh (who was posted as Beat Constable in the area at the relevant time) is hardly of any consequence, as this Court is not able to understand as to why said Beat Constable waited till the arrest of the applicant to name the applicant, when he had categorically seen and identified the applicant indulging in riots on the date of the incident, i.e 25.02.2020.” While doubting on the credibility of the witness (Beat Constable), the Court further said, “Being police official, what stopped him from reporting the matter then and there in the PS or to bring the same in the knowledge of higher police officers.”The case against Accused The case FIR in the matter was registered on 05.03.2020 on the complaint of one Rajesh Singh, owner of Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. (Maruti Authorized Showroom), who in his written complaint dated 28.02.2020 had stated that his car showroom was completely damaged, vandalized and thereafter set on fire by the riotous mob on 25.02.2020 as a result of which six cars, accessories, computers, printers, air-conditioners, furniture etc. were completely burnt and he suffered a loss to the tune of around Rs.3.50 Crores (approximately) on this account Arguments put forth It was argued by the applicant’s counsel that there was an “unexplained delay” of about nine (09) days in the registration of FIR in this case. It was further argued that his CDR location is of no help to the investigating agency as he is a resident of the same locality/area. It was next argued that the applicant has not been subjected to judicial TIP and the alleged identification of applicant by PW Zahid Hasan from a large mob in absence of TIP, that “too after a lapse of around two and a half (2½) months of the alleged incident cannot be relied upon.” On the other hand, Special PP argued before the Court that the applicant was categorically identified by one public witness namely Zahid Hasan, as part/member of the riotous mob, who was present at the scene of the crime (SOC) on the date of the incident and taking an active part in the rioting. It was also argued that his identity was further established by Constable Mukesh, who was Beat Constable of the area in question on the date of incident. Interestingly, it was also argued that the police officials of PS Dayalpur remained busy in law and order duty and as such, delay in recording of FIRs took place. Court’s observations The Court, in its order, noted that the arrest of the applicant in the present matter was effected by the investigating agency on 30.10.2020, i.e. after lapse of about eight months of the date of the incident and that too after obtaining his Production Warrants [as the applicant has already been in judicial custody in case FIRs No.59/2020 (investigated by Special Cell) and 60/2020 (PS Dayalpur)] and taking his two days’ PC remand. Further, while noting that the statement of PW was recorded, three months after the date of the incident, the Court remarked, “This Court cannot lose sight of the timing of recording of statement of PW Zahid Hasan, which admittedly was recorded after almost expiry of three months of the date of the incident. Even in his statement, Hasan has not levelled specific allegations of putting on fire the showroom in question by the applicant and the same pertains to incendiary speeches being delivered by the riotous mob.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, applicant Salim Malik @ Munna was admitted to bail in the matter on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld.CMM/Ld.Illaka MM/Ld.Duty MM. He has been asked to install “Aarogya Setu App” in his mobile phone. Thus, the bail application stood disposed of.Click here to download order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more